I'm going to look at this this week end.
Will come back with comments.
Seems like the twitter tweet may be a small enough data item for me to grasp
the concepts?
Many thanks.
Adam
On 16 April 2010 13:15, Alexandre Passant <alexandre.passant@deri.org>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 16 Apr 2010, at 10:37, Chris Sizemore wrote:
>
> > the main problem is gonna be the cognitive dissonance over whether a
> tweet is an information or non-information resource and how many URIs are
> needed to fully rep a tweet...
> >
> > so, who's gonna volunteer to publish the linked data version of Twitter
> data, a la db/wiki[pedia] ...
>
> That's what we're doing in SMOB [1]
> It translates Twitter data if you integrate your Twitter account in your
> SMOB client, see for instance [2] and check the 'RDF' links
> In the current version, hashtags and @replies are not yet exported (planned
> for upcoming release), but they are in another exporter available at [3] -
> translating streamed Twitter data as RDF.
> It's using SemanticTweet to model the user accounts.
>
> Both exporters use FOAF, SIOC, OPO, MOAT, CommonTag, etc.
>
> Best,
>
> Alex.
>
> [1] http://smob.me
> [2] http://apassant.net/smob/
> [3] code.google.com/p/rtsw
>
> >
> >
> >
> > best
> >
> > Cs
> >
> >
> >
> > On 16 Apr 2010, at 10:28 AM, "adasal" <adam.saltiel@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> twitter have a hard task as they have to take into account usage. The
> community have evolved their own, inconsistent, usage - for instance this
> tweet
> >> greenhaze #ff big up: @_Jameslloyd @AlysFowler @brightgreenscot
> @AskTheClimateQ @faisalislam @valerieoriordan @peopleandplanet @38_degrees
> @krishgm
> >> compared to
> >> craftygreenpoet Quiz party manifesto writers, Ed Miliband, Oliver Letwin
> and Danny Alexander. Join in now http://bit.ly/9eYpSI #38degrees
> #ukelection
> >>
> >> Notice the #ff hash tag and the phrase 'big up:' in the first tweet as
> well as the many references (@ tags).
> >> So a popular sign #ff has been invented and there are different styles
> of posting, of drawing attention.
> >> The developers of a name space might have to take all of these issues
> into account, for instance the range of intentions of posters of which
> 'drawing attention' may just be one, or be a super set. Or, alternatively,
> just create a basic name space with a few, lose, defined entities?
> >> I think that the problem would be to define a semantics that allows
> users to continue to invent usage.
> >> Or will invention be seen to peter out anyway as people settle on a few
> useful 'tools' such as the #ff hash tag?
> >>
> >> Of course, the other side of introducing semantics is that it could
> increase the expressive scope of what is an incredibly restricted format.
> But twitter might find that counter productive. The restriction, which is a
> product of a lack of common symbols that might be used knowingly to extend
> it, is the mother of invention. Often that invention lies in a sexual
> direction (or products or money). With regard the sexual it extends into
> that realm well because the mystery of not knowing is coupled with the
> necessity to invent 'something' on top of what is really a well known human
> area - the play of ambiguity suits the subject matter making it seem racier
> than perhaps it really is.
> >>
> >> A formalism might destroy this though?
> >>
> >>
> >> Best,
> >>
> >> Adam Saltiel
> >>
> >>
> >> On 16 April 2010 02:52, Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hopefully everybody has heard that Twitter will release some annotation
> feature which will allow to add metadata to each tweet.
> >>
> >> I just read this blog post
> http://scobleizer.com/2010/04/15/twitter-annotations/
> >>
> >> and the following caught my attention: "There aren’t any rules as to
> what can be in this metadata. YET. All the devs I’ve talked to say they
> expect Twitter to “bless” namespaces so the industry will have one common
> way to describe common things"
> >>
> >> I'm just wondering what people here think about this.
> >>
> >>
> >> Juan Sequeda
> >> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
> >> www.juansequeda.com
> >>
> >
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk
> > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain
> personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically
> stated.
> > If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
> > Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
> > Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
> > Further communication will signify your consent to this.
>
> --
> Dr. Alexandre Passant
> Digital Enterprise Research Institute
> National University of Ireland, Galway
> :me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
>